[governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain

[Deirdre Williams]

Yes - but the 1987 act, creating the power to revoke the status of a
diplomatic mission,<http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1987/may/14/diplomatic-and-consular-premises-bill#S5LV0487P0_19870514_HOL_414>
was
passed by Parliament in the wake of the Libyan embassy crisis three years
before, when PC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead with a bullet fired from
inside the embassy.

Ministers said they needed powers to revoke an embassy's status where the
mission was not being used for a proper purpose connected to diplomacy.

The then Foreign Office Minister, Baroness Young, told the Lords at the
time that the government had in mind a situation where a mission "was being
used... in support of terrorist activity". In other words, the power was
needed for exceptional circumstances.

Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18521881 - scroll down to heading
 But aren't all embassies protected from interference?
Deirdre

On 20 August 2012 12:34, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>wrote:

> That was mentioned in the BBC reporting yesterday - in connection with
> someone who allegedly shot a policewoman in London and then ducked into the
> Libyan embassy.
> Deirdre
>
> On 20 August 2012 12:29, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>> Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South
>> American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision.
>>
>> BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve
>> such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be
>> returning...
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> > In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug
>> > 2012, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> writes
>> >> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to
>> >> storm the Embassy.
>> >
>> > Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some
>> > circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able
>> > to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that
>> > reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step
>> > plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell
>> > for some time.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120820/c002d77d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t